zombiefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Weapons/Archive 1
realism for anyone new or existing allready id like to point out the fact that this is kinda satirical, but it is based on the idea of a realistic zombie apocalyspe, so i ask that you keep anything concerning "mystical weapons or mystical qualities of certain weapons" to yourself for the sake of zombiepedia and that weapon as no one wants to hear that genghis khan weilded a magical tiger hook sword known as "samurai lincoln" and if you find it you gain his powers, or shotguns were weilded by jesus in christian mythology. I would also like to advise against any more descriptions torn from the show deadliest warrior as it is hardly based on reality nor are it's weapon experts actually experts or have been proven so. Gwyllgi 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) ---- Just expanded on a few more weapons, and thought I'd throw in a 'where to find them' section Wrayth 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ---- Revolvers are often chambered for more powerful rounds than semi-auto? Please show me where I can find a revolver chambered for .50 AE! SpartHawg948 21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC) :Not sure why that's added to my comment, as I didn't make the original page :P Having said that, a brief search on wikipedia finds the Magnum Research BFR, the Taurus Raging Bull, and the S&W Model 500 (Which was specifically listed in the .50AE article as having better ballistic performance for the same caliber. That aside, I would agree that with the increasing prevalence of 9mm and .45 Semi-auto handguns, the previous statement of 'often' could be challenged. ---- Is there going to be a section/page for modified weapons? I've been thinking about wether there should be anything about electricity based weapons as they could (if used correctly) make good weapons against zombies. Any comments? ---- Why, exactly, did we drop the advantages/disadvantages and formatting from the lower half of the weapons page? Without further comment, I'm going to revert the page and try and carry across some of 67.80.100.104's points. The javelin is mentioned, but only in its difference from the spear. How effective is the javelin as a distance weapon? Obviously, relying solely on the javelin would be an almost certainly lethal decision; however, perhaps the javelin could make a valuable secondary weapon, depending on conditions. :True, though at the time of writing, I did not know how quite to separate the two. But, I will work on that.--Sgt Kelly 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC) RPG There is no RPG-7 in this list so RPGS are perfect long range rocket launcher to splatter the zombies with ease :RPGs are weapons made to break tank's armor and bunkers, its rockets are designed to have a small concentrated blast radius and to only blow when they hit a hard surface (tank's hull) if you fire it against a horde it will pass through one or two zombies (that will continue coming after you because their brains are still intact) and will hit the ground without blowing, even if it blows it will only knock some zombies down, zombies that will rise again (no significant brain damage), plus: it and its ammo are hard to come by, slow to reload -- Zazula 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::Also, rpgs may not be as effective against zombies as you think. First of all, its primarily a concussive shrapnel detonation which will damage but not kill any zombies sans a direct hit... And even a direct hit may not be enough, since the rocket propelled grenade would probably just pass through the zombies decaying flesh. Wouldn't these weapons be effective in an indirect way though like cutting/burning/blasting through certain muscle groups, breaking bones, destroying senses? I mean its a lot easier to run from a zombie that constantly falls over because it's legs don't work and hide from one that can't smell/see you. Also wouldn't a couple of incendiary weapons be great at killing a hoard of zombies surrounding your fortress, I mean tightly packed, flammable and determined not to give up their place in the line you could probably take the whole lot out in one shot given enough time. :That's an excellent point, but it raises the risk of flaming shamblers setting barricades on fire. //--Run4urLife! 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :: even if it not set the entire fortress on fire, the smoke will intoxicate everyone in the base. Think about: if you make a fire too close to house wall you house will get on fire, even if its made from brick or concrete -- Zazula 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::Yup, smoke inhalation kills just as sure as fire. Steel is the best thing to keep them from setting the gaff on fire. Mostly because it'll conduct heat away from anything its not in contact with. As in big sheets of steel, not just girders or I-Beams. //--Run4urLife! 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::::good point that might be a bit of problem :::::"Wouldn't these weapons be effective in an indirect way though like cutting/burning/blasting through certain muscle groups, breaking bones, destroying senses? I mean its a lot easier to run from a zombie that constantly falls over because it's legs don't work and hide from one that can't smell/see you." :::::Even if all of that is true, an RPG-7 is a very inefficient way of destroying zombies. Both the launcher and its rockets are heavy and bulky, reloading is a slow process, and there are safety concerns an untrained user might not know about. Back blast, for example: When fired, launchers like the RPG-7 create a wave of heat pressure in the opposite direction, behind the shooter, which is known as back blast, that can go back as far as 15 meters or more. Being hit by back blast can result in severe burns and can even be fatal. Sure, this is fine if a zombie is sneaking up behind you when you fire, but what about other survivors? And don't even think about firing one of these from an enclosed space, such as backed up against a wall or from inside a room, or you'll probably cook yourself with the back blast. Point is, an RPG is a very specialized weapon and is more difficult to find, more difficult to carry, and more difficult to use than just about any firearm, so why would you use one to kill a few zombies and shock the rest into being a little bit less dangerous when you could simply shoot each one in the head with a rifle in the same amount of time with less danger and effort? The only practical use I can think of for an RPG in a zombie apocalypse scenario is against any raiders who might happen to have some kind of armored vehicle which, while unlikely, isn't the most far-fetched scenario. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|'MattyDienhoff']] «talk» 07:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Agreed. If you find an RPG, do yourself a favour, throw away the rocket and use the launcher as a club. //--''Run4My Talk'' 21:35, November 20, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Let's not forget how the RPG is lacking in accuracy. Ghost Leader 00:46, January 18, 2010 (UTC) weapon inaccuracies flamethrowers are actually much more useful than the current article would have you believe. They have a range of 80 feet and fire a burning liquid stream onto enemies, incinerating anything (including causing some massive damage to tanks... Tanks!) with sustained fire. Do you think that the zombie will burn entirely before he walk that 80 feet (24 meters) towards you? But that not the worst part: * they are not reliable * hard to find * and their resource to kill ratio are one of the worst of all weapons Zazula 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Zazula, zazula, zazula... the issue with flamethrowers is not them burning fast enough, infact with proper placement the fire could render a zed a crawler, who would burn before he could pull himself to you. Infact all of your issues can be said of most guns the only difference is that replacing fuel for a flamethrower is easier than making a bullet with a bit less danger (if you are a dedicated pyro like some). The main issue it the weight and the fact it's more of a gas guzzler than cars 20 time it's size. --Gwyllgi 01:58, October 9, 2011 (UTC) Transportation Practicality It may be a good idea to list approximate weights for each weapon, as well as other useful information when it comes to transportation practicality. The flamethrower subsection could act as a good model for how to do this. On this train of thought, maybe an entire article should be made on combinations of weapons, food, and other survival gear practical to walking and other forms of transportation in different environments. Such an article would be a comprehensive analysis of the subtlties of a zombie outbreak. I would type up such an article myself, but I know too little about weapon weights. Besides, such an article is probably a bad idea. :< 03:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Small Pickaxes I would like to suggest the adition of that small pickaxes that hikers use (I don't know the name in English) they are lightweight, easy to swing, sturdy, the main problem is that they are short (think of a carpenter hammer). -- Zazula 17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :Like an Ice Pick? Those would make pretty good weapons, other than they have serrated undersides, designed for getting grip on surfaces, and consequently, could quite easily get lodged in a zombie skull. //--Run4urLife! 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Yes they probably will. Here in Brazil we have plain small pickaxes used for making small holes in brick walls (for wiring, plumbing, etc) they are made from the same material of the crowbars. these will not get stuck and as I have one or two in my home that would be my secondary weapon against zombies XD -- Zazula 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::OH! I think I know the ones you mean! They only have the spike on one side. In not-so-sunny little Ireland, we use those for gardening. We use sledgehammers or lump hammers (and sometimes shuttering carpenter's hammers, which are lump hammers with longer handles, and consequently a kick-ass zombie weapon) to burst brick walls for wiring and plumbing. My own secondary weapon would probably be a splitting axe (I live within walking distance of a DIY shop, so its easy to loot one). Mostly because a felling axe is too big and unweildy, hatchets are too short, and the hatchet we keep in the shed is suffering from neglect, and the head has been known to fly off the handle in the backswing O_o //--Run4urLife! 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ::: :::A good choice although I wouldn't try your looting tactic, remember a weappon is only as good as the person wielding it.Zedhead81 18:28, April 26, 2011 (UTC) ::: asian weapons seriously why is it that every weapon from east of kuwait is is described like a the fatman ressurect in blade form? dont people realize that europeans have rich weapon history beyond axes? why dont i see a ger page or a rapier or cutlass part. and how can you bring up muramasa who was vastly inferior to masamune, and where are damascus blade or toledos? there are still some hanging around albeit in the hand of spanish royalty but probably easier to obtain than a muramasa blade! --Gwyllgi 23:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC) :While that is true, they are sadly not as famous. And, while many people assume Muramasa's swords weren't a patch on Masamune's, the fact that they are even comparable is a testament to their craftmanship. The Shilelagh (not the ones you buy in those tourist trap shops we have all over Dublin, the real ones, a three/four foot long piece of wood with a large lead-filled piece at one end, like Brendan Gleeson used in Gangs of New York) would make a cracker of a zombie killer. Just an example. //--Run4urLife! 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) maybe i should start putting down some other weapons like the pata, wait does indian count as asian? --Gwyllgi 23:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC)```` :Yes, it does. And you can sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. //--Run4urLife! 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ::Sorry, that came across really conceited, didn't it? No offence meant >.< //--Run4urLife! 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC) bludgeon,slashing,piercing i will be changing the set up to make more sense.Gwyllgi 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Resources for Research Please see This Forum Post for additional resources to validate firearms info. - Philodox 19:16, January 10, 2010 (UTC) A note on Explosives as portrayed in World War Z I may be mistaken, but I believe I have found an oversight with Max Brooks' portrayal of the use of explosives on Zombie Hoards. His point that Zombies would be immune to Sudden Nerve Trauma and the "Balloon Effect" is sound. However, some of the explosive weaponry used in the battle of Yonkers were high-velocity explosives, such as those used in mining. These explosives produce a concussive blast that vaporizes cubic meters of solid granite. One has to believe that such an explosive would also destroy areas of zombie hordes, leaving no solid chunk of zombie tissue larger than a gaming die. I have yet to uncover solid data that backs up this theory, but I would not be surprised if such data resides here. If anyone has experience with high velocity explosives, please feel free to contribute your thoughts. Thanks. - Philodox 19:16, January 10, 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material What they mean by high-velocity explosives is the premise that so-called "slow" explosives expand slowly in the resulting plume which is used to carry debris and stuff such as shrapnel. This explosive is generally stuff like RXD or C4 because it carries things and why it's used by terrorists in carbombs because the car goes "Bye-bye" and you end up with a bumper welded in a building half a block away. High velocity explosives are the ones that are used in RPG's and other HEAT based weapons because they compress the copper plate into a point that gets pushed through the armor. High velocity is also most commonly the "fertiliser" bombs through mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate etc. and would (if in reasonable quantities) create such a pressure wave they would obliterate any organic matter within it's pressure wave. So, theoretically speaking, the use of High velocity explosive would turn zombies into red-mist... Simply put, High velocity explosive is simply explosive used to create such powerful shockwaves that it could turn things into powder. Whilst Slow explosives are designed to push and throw. - Ice-T 21:02, March 19, 2010 (GMT) :This is one area where, despite Brooks being wrong, and not doing his homework, we cannot overrule, or point out his mistake without basically saying that a zombie apocalypse could never happen on that scale, because we can simply vaporize hot zones. In the book, because Zombies transform all blood and liquid into infections gross movable ballstics gel x100, explosives were not effective. Even though if it actually happened, you're right, they would be. :In Marvel Comics, the Incredible Hulk saved most of the major heroes by lifting up an entire mountain range many miles long. Even if such a feat were possible, physics tells us that the mountain range would not support it's own weight and collapse, or Hulk would be driven deeper into the ground by the weight, because the spot he stood on would give in to the pressure, even if his body doesn't. Still, even though it's wrong, we have to honor canon. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 17:06, March 20, 2011 (UTC) 22 Calibur section I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure a contributer is mistaking 22 calibur handgun ammo for 22 calibur rifle ammo. I've read that An m16 round is comparible in size and width to a 22 round (although they use the NATO standardization, so i can get confusing) - the difference is the amount of primer makes the m16 round supersonic. In fact, it's difficult to get larger heavier rounds to go supersonic. Likewise, I have seen handguns customized for 22 calibur rifle ammo. They are monstrous, and kick like a mule, and hold very few bullets, because of how large they are. - Philodox 15:03, January 12, 2010 (UTC) : Just did a little research. 22 calibur rimfire ammo is the same for both rifle and pistol. The 'brain slurpee' effect, while not likely enough to bank on, has been known to happen. - Philodox 22:21, January 23, 2010 (UTC) ::From too far away, a .22 or .223 slug might not even penetrate the skull. Just hit the bone and follow the contour. It'll be messy, but it won't stop a zombie. I wouldn't bank on one myself. Unless it was the 5.56x45 NATO, the military version. Same cartridge dimensions for both, so you can use a .223 Remington in a 5.56 weapon, but using a 5.56 in a .22 weapon can damage it. //--'Run4'My Talk'' 17:59, January 24, 2010 (UTC) :::There are several rounds that can get confusing: .22 short, .22 lr which is of primary interest to the survivalist, and .22 mangum. :::.223 remington and 5.56x45 mm NATO have comparable (though not indentical) diameter to the .22 lr, but the weight of the bullet and size and shape of the casing are very different. :::Kits are available that allow .22 lr rounds to be shot from the armalite platform, but they are somewhat intrusive to install. :::I hope this helps clear up any confusion, but if I was unclear or confusing, just ask. I will provide citations and eloboration on request.. :::Vox humana 17:01, March 16, 2011 (UTC) ::: :::The "Brain Slurpee" effect is an interesting one but I wouldn't trust anything lower than a 9mm myself.Zedhead81 18:27, April 26, 2011 (UTC) ::: Informal Tone Hey guys, I know we keep things a little looser on this wiki than many others, but for me personally, I think there are too many areas in this article that we really go overboard. Don't get me wrong, some the comments are really funny. Still, it reads too much like a comic or something than a resource. Just doesn't have the same impact, and it blurs the line between opinion and "fact". I'm not going to make the changes, or put an infobox up on it or anything, in case I'm the only one. But I just thought I'd use this space to voice one man's opinion. Thanks. - Philodox 15:31, January 13, 2010 (UTC) --I agree. While amusing, I feel that this site is supposed to be a reliable source of information, albeit satirical in tone, and focus a little more on fact than opinion. FF says "Hell is full. Next please" 00:40, September 26, 2010 (UTC) Exploding Propane Tanks First off, For each particularly dangerous improvised stunt, we should have a "Don't try this at home" disclaimer. If you'd like, you can add template, then type in Template:POV Distort. I made that. It was supposed to just be for the the Paul Redeker article, but I kept changing the template to make it all purpose. Anyway, while I like the info currently up for Exploding Propane Tanks, I found a guy who's probably actually done it. God Bless the South. Don't mess with Texas. :\ http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=73817&page=3 Basically he says with tracers, an assault rifle, accurate shooting (has to be dead center) and multiple shots (the first shot never does it, because there is no air in the tank for the spark to keep), it can be done. It sounds good to me. If there are no objections, stipulations or counter arguments, I'm going to mesh this interpretation in with what is already on this article. Split This Up, Please We have awesome info here guys. Many thanks to those editing before me. But people have voiced concern that we should increase the post count, both for Search Engine and "E-Peen" reasons. If that's how we feel, then we should make this page work more like the Bases page. It's quite an undertaking, but I would appreciate it if people could transfer content to new, original pages that are just about a certain thing. For example, move the Handguns section to a new Handguns page (not the comparitive one, I have plans for that), then delete most of the Weapons#Handguns part, but include the link to the full handguns article we recently made. Feel free to email me or use my talk if you want to help, but need more clarification. :Well, the big spluit project is underway. Here is the proper procedure, if you'd like to help. :1. Copy a portion of the weapons page into a new article page. Name this new page accordingly. :2. On the weapons page, leave the section you've copied, but right below the section heading add a line that says.... ::See also: New Page : Obviously, it won't say New Page, it'll be the direct link to the page you just created. While it will be largely identical and redundant, for now, let us keep the new page about just the one section, as well as it's parent section in weapons. :3. When most/all of the sections in weapons have their own pages, then we can trim down the weapons page. Of course, the things that are guaranteed to remain in weapons are the links to the pages we're making. :Thanks. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. :-- Philodox 15:27, March 16, 2010 (UTC) :Weapons should be split into 'short range' 'medium range' and 'long range' pages. or maybe just long and short range. and even then short range could be split into blunt and sharp weapons. :Zeagle1 21:13, October 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Fun fact. Most of the split has already taken place, but the corresponding areas have not been removed from the main article. Big project, should be done systematically, so nothing is deleted (or saved) erroneously. Not exactly the most fulfilling job, which is probably why no one has done it yet. It's on the list. :: — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 02:29, October 31, 2011 (UTC) ::i'll move the sections of the weapons apart. i will leave the main weapons page in place, and eventully just make it a re-direct to the seperate page. will start VERY soon if there is no objections, and if there are some please notify me ::Zeagle1 18:46, October 31, 2011 (UTC) ATTENTION: Philodox I hereby propose, in conjuction with the page split, the following general template for firearms pages: '''Weapon type' (ie Semi-automatic handguns) (General info about the weapon type, general characteristics, including common types, and common ammunition used. A picture of a typical, well-designed example of the relevant type.) Disadvantages (A general discussion of disadvantages pecuiliar to said weapon type, difficulties in employment and acquisition.) Advantages (A general discussion of advantages pecuiliar to said weapon type, difficulties in employment and acquisition.) Miscellaneous (Section can be retitled) (Miscellaneous information directly pertaining to the suitability and employment of the class of weapons.) (Category Box including links to the other weapon types) -- [[User:Griever0311|'Griever0311']] 00:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds good. I'm grateful for the reinforcements I'm guessing you called in. I haven't been losing interest, just overwhelmed with work and constant errinds after work. But yeah, expect delays from me in regards to big edits. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 04:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC) I know I'm not part of this conversation, but. It was Griever that asked for help, so I made a task force over at the CoD Wiki and, here we are. 21:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I hope you get everything straightened out, I feel you. 21:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC) My input I honestly think it would be easier to split the page into (semi-automatic rifles, full-automatic rifles ect.) before doing major editing. And almost start each page from scrach, yet keep this page untill the split is finished. Dolten :The split, I'm totally in favor of. I think there is some good content already on the weapons page though, so I wouldn't start from scratch. I would copy/paste in to the page to be created, make the edits as needed, then when that page is up to par, eliminate the info from the main weapons page. :I visualize the weapons page having short descriptions of the weapon types in a very similar grouping as you proposed, Dolten. And then after a couple lines about them, having the link to "main article:rifles", or something like that. I'll get you more specifics in a bit. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 04:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Thats the jist of it. By "start from scatch" I mean copy/past what we can, then go through each smaller page. That way it's easier to fix it up than before the split. I'll do it as soon as I have your authorization. 21:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC) I'm starting to think we need a directory page for each type of weapon (eg all shotgun pages would be first under Shotguns) Then it would have the discription of a shotgun, and links to all the shotgun pages. 01:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Bullpup Rifles 02:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)A weapon that didn't come in this article and is very effective is a Bullpup Rifle, thy're as short as a carbine, but with good stopping power. Also, their short lenght makes them perfect for urban enviroments (being less bulky to carry and aim) and close quarters without sacrificing any accuracy because the mag. is by the shooter's face making the barrel longer, also the ammo is quite simple to come about, for it is the ussual in any asault rifles, most commonly 5.56X54, 7.62X39 or 5.45X39. Some examples are: FN F2000, th SA-80 and the Steyr AUG. The only inconvenience, if any, is that is meant to be shot on one side only, otherwise the empty cartrig would hit the shooter in the face, but some variants have allready solved this problem(such as the FN F2000 which ejects the cartridges through the forward end next to the barrel), or you can solve it, by putting cardboard, or plastic in a 45° angle over the ejection chamber sending the cartridges down before they hit your face. Well, another inconvenience is that since the mag. is under the shootr's face, you cannot see how much ammo you have left, and for someone who is not used to it, realoading might feel uncomfortalbe and/or difficult compared to normal rifles. But for a good stoppping power and good acuuracy, i think it is a very good price to pay. I very much understand the movement to eliminate all fictional weapons and misconceptions introduced by the works of Max Brooks. Accuracy is definitely an area of this wiki that needs major improvement. Having said that, there are some notable exceptions to the rule. While we do not honor concepts introduced by fan fiction on this wiki, we do honor some of the more far-out concepts offered up in World War Z (more so that the Zombie Survival Guide). I have already brought up the reasons for this on the discussion page for Military Effectiveness. I think the disclaimer that the Laser Weapons are only from World War Z (whose search terms fuel a great deal of traffic to this site) helps clarify this. It definitely belongs at the end of the article, as unlike all the other weapons, one cannot learn anything related to survival from its prescence. The same goes for the Recorded Attacks section, but those exist to document/archive the Brooks' accounts. The THEL is not unlike the EBR M21 in COD. While it is mostly based on a real weapon, Infinity Ward used artistic license to make a few changes and dub it as a weapon that does not exist. Likewise, Captain MacTavish also has an article, so having subjects that are fictional are not unprecedented. My previous suggestion aimes to keep it in, but off to the side, and in line with the original vision for this wiki - which is both to educate and clarify, but also to document a body of literary work that is admiteddly, sometimes sketchy. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>''']] talk 15:46, May 10, 2010 (UTC) I'll stick it in the Rifles page. 22:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC) While I acknowledge the effectiveness, portability and other benefits of bull pup weapons, I think they may fall under the same affliction as the Xiaolin spade. As of 2010 (subject to change) very few bull pup rifles are available for civilian purchase (my own research yielding around 7-8 types, each in comparatively limited availability.) Also very few military units issue bull pup rifles as standard equipment to their troops (however the British Royal marines and I believe some Australian military units issue L85 and AUG rifles to some of their troops as well as smaller militias of other countries.) In my opinion based on my own research it is unrealistic for a civilian to encounter and salvage an operational bull pup rifle as of 2010. I base this opinion on my own research and offer it for your consideration, thank you. -Zeta